Environmental Issues

[Irish#1]

Yeah no one said it isn't a crime. It is also negligence to not actively protect works of art that can never be replaced

Not sure why you keep referencing the curators then.

 

[TorontoGold]

Not sure why you keep referencing the curators then.

Read his posts instead of just arguing for the sake of it lol.

 

[calvegas04]

Not sure why you keep referencing the curators then.

The ones who run museums? And I assume are responsible for the safety of objects inside?

 

[ulukinatme]

Yeah no one said it isn't a crime. It is also negligence to not actively protect works of art that can never be replaced

Uh I’d beg to differ that not protecting priceless pieces of art (some of which are only loaned to the galleries and are owned by private collectors) is negligent and they can be held legally liable for damages incurred to to their negligence

Edit calves just be me on the negligence…

There's the Visual Artists Rights Act, which allows artists to claim ownership when their work is publicly displayed. It also allows them to prevent their work from being modified, altered, destroyed, mutilated, or distorted in a way that hurts the artists' reputation. That pertains to someone who defaces a work of art though. What law finds a museum representative at fault for criminal charges if a piece isn't secured properly? At worst I'm finding that the museum could be liable for fines or be forced to foot the bill for restoration, but in most cases of art damage insurance covers the restoration bit if it was found to be accidental.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

There's the Visual Artists Rights Act, which allows artists to claim ownership when their work is publicly displayed. It also allows them to prevent their work from being modified, altered, destroyed, mutilated, or distorted in a way that hurts the artists' reputation. That pertains to someone who defaces a work of art though. What law finds a museum representative at fault for criminal charges if a piece isn't secured properly? At worst I'm finding that the museum could be liable for fines or be forced to foot the bill for restoration, but in most cases of art damage insurance covers the restoration bit if it was found to be accidental.

Negligence - (Art Law and Ethics) - Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable

Negligence refers to the failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances, which results in harm or injury to another party. In the context of art galleries and art restoration, negligence can manifest in various forms, such as failing to...

library.fiveable.me

Museums who can be shown to inadequately protect art from damage can be held liable for damages (negligence). Obviously if the museum makes efforts and a person willfully destroys art anyway they would be primary at fault but the museum could still be found liable and generally those claims are paid by insurance if the museum carries it which they may not and are not required to hold.

If it’s an accident generally the museum can handle via insurance. Also if the museum houses dangerous pieces with sharp edges or a piece of art is not secured properly or is structurally unstable again the museum has a responsibility and duty to display the pieces in a manner that protect the public and the artists piece. Even if any of this is found to be negligent the museum can pay via insurance but just like any other form of insurance museums may find it difficult to get coverage if they are are constantly having to settle claims.

I don’t think any one said anything about the museum be held criminally liable just monetarily liable if found to be negligent however there could be issues related to negligent security and those can be criminal issues if their lack of security results in severe injury or death. This is pretty common criminal charge against property owners with a legal requirement to provide reasonable protection for persons or property on their property.

Negligence can be civil or criminal. Depends and the case. Harm can be any number of things be it damaged art pieces or physical harm to the public.

 

[ulukinatme]

Negligence - (Art Law and Ethics) - Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable

Negligence refers to the failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances, which results in harm or injury to another party. In the context of art galleries and art restoration, negligence can manifest in various forms, such as failing to...

library.fiveable.me

Museums who can be shown to inadequately protect art from damage can be held liable for damages (negligence). Obviously if the museum makes efforts and a person willfully destroys art anyway they would be primary at fault but the museum could still be found liable and generally those claims are paid by insurance if the museum carries it which they may not and are not required to hold.

If it’s an accident generally the museum can handle via insurance. Also if the museum houses dangerous pieces with sharp edges or a piece of art is not secured properly or is structurally unstable again the museum has a responsibility and duty to display the pieces in a manner that protect the public and the artists piece. Even if any of this is found to be negligent the museum can pay via insurance but just like any other form of insurance museums may find it difficult to get coverage if they are are constantly having to settle claims.

I don’t think any one said anything about the museum be held criminally liable just monetarily liable if found to be negligent however there could be issues related to negligent security and those can be criminal issues if their lack of security results in severe injury or death. This is pretty common criminal charge against property owners with a legal requirement to provide reasonable protection for persons or property on their property.

Negligence can be civil or criminal. Depends and the case. Harm can be any number of things be it damaged art pieces or physical harm to the public.

It was suggested that if the museum failed to protect a piece of art that the individual in charge should see jail time next to the one who vandalized the art. I was just playing devil's advocate. I'm all for the museum eating the fine and restoration costs if they fail to put decent protections in place for works of art, as oppose to insurance footing the bill.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

It was suggested that if the museum failed to protect a piece of art that the individual in charge should see jail time next to the one who vandalized the art. I was just playing devil's advocate. I'm all for the museum eating the fine and restoration costs if they fail to put decent protections in place for works of art, as oppose to insurance footing the bill.

Sorry… I didn’t catch that specific claim. I hear ya. I’d say the museum would be with its rights to take action on the person in charge though just like any other employer but I’m not totally up on how museums are organized at the top. Maybe it’s one person maybe it’s a board of trustees. Maybe it’s a committee? In any case I expect there is at least one decision maker that would be in charge who could face action internally if the museum were to.be found at fault.

 

[Irish#1]

Read his posts instead of just arguing for the sake of it lol.

The painting was protected. It's a $90M piece of art. Not one of your paint by numbers renditions. It's the equivalent of an article describing a car wreck and Calvegas saying it would be negligent not having seat belts.

 

[drayer54]

It was always about extremism.

 

[calvegas04]

It was always about extremism.

What did she ever do to get sucha following?

 

[TorontoGold]

The Conservative brain will label anything they don't agree with as extremism, but champion a guy who says the country is in shambles and gone to hell lmao.

 

[Blazers46]

The Conservative brain will label anything they don't agree with as extremism, but champion a guy who says the country is in shambles and gone to hell lmao.

Make America Great Again crowd v When has America ever been great crowd.

America has gone to hell crowd v America has always been in hell crowd.

God bless you sir!

 

[drayer54]

The Conservative brain will label anything they don't agree with as extremism, but champion a guy who says the country is in shambles and gone to hell lmao.

Nah. Her brand is extremism. The environmental movement is loaded with people who want to use the false high ground of the planet and air to drive their broader left-wing agenda. Her pro-Hamas and anti-Israel game is a strong tell.

 

[TorontoGold]

Nah. Her brand is extremism. The environmental movement is loaded with people who want to use the false high ground of the planet and air to drive their broader left-wing agenda. Her pro-Hamas and anti-Israel game is a strong tell.

Yeah she's very pro-Hamas! lol

 

[drayer54]

Yeah she's very pro-Hamas! lol

The climate agenda and Gaza have become very intertwined!

 

[Irish#1]

It was always about extremism.

It's always been one big Woke movement. Strength in numbers.

 

[drayer54]

What do you know- Ivy league- anti-capitalist and climate change! Weird. I'll bet if we looked, he has problems with Israel too.

 

[ab2cmiller]

The Recycling Religion - Stossel TV

Not necessarily new but maybe, just maybe, this can get my wife to stop throwing pizza boxes in the recycling bin.

Funny thing about Sunny - two of those three things are 100% proven predictable, exactly when and where through science. Climate zealots never miss an opportunity to ride coat tails of real science.

Saw a tweet again today about this. I think I’m finally done paying for recycling.

Paying for something that almost entirely useless.

Paying for and wasting water as we rinse everything out.

Separate recycling trucks polluting the air, all in the name of the recycling religion.

I’ll recycle aluminum cans and that is it going forward.

 

[ulukinatme]

Same, aluminum cans are the only thing I've bothered recycling in my life, although right now I'm not even doing that. I probably should given recent shortages. That said, in the 15 years I've owned a home I refused to keep an extra bin for recycling. Not only was it a hassle and one more can taking up space outside my house, I had been told by someone working at our local recycling center years ago that it was mostly a waste and not all that helpful. At both houses I've owned I asked the trash pickup to take the recycling can away.

 

[RDU Irish]

Woke policy has enabled and subsidized that dummies entire business model.

China? Beats me. I’m guessing they clearly understand the issue. Securing the headwaters of the major river systems that flow into China is one of the big reasons they invaded Tibet and how quickly they have come to dominate production in the renewable energy sector demonstrate how serious they are about this.

Maybe an international agreement similar to the SALT treaties?

dummy's

LOL

 

[Irish#1]

Same, aluminum cans are the only thing I've bothered recycling in my life, although right now I'm not even doing that. I probably should given recent shortages. That said, in the 15 years I've owned a home I refused to keep an extra bin for recycling. Not only was it a hassle and one more can taking up space outside my house, I had been told by someone working at our local recycling center years ago that it was mostly a waste and not all that helpful. At both houses I've owned I asked the trash pickup to take the recycling can away.

If you want to recycle where I live, you have to pay for the extra garbage can. Seems counter-productive.

 

[drayer54]

Dems remind us that they are indeed retarded and just weaponizing this bs to drive their agenda and oppose their enemies.

 

[Rockin’Irish]

Dems remind us that they are indeed retarded and just weaponizing this bs to drive their agenda and oppose their enemies.

Maybe we can start allowing lawsuits against people with vehicles, lawncare equipment, furnaces, fire pits, HVAC systems, fireplaces, electricity, natural gas appliances, generators, etal. for causing climate change since we all contribute to the biosphere by merely existing and functioning. We definitely need to clog up the legal system with even more inane lawsuits.

 

[Bluto]

dummy's

LOL

Oh I agree they’re dummies.

They should have taxed the shit out of these tech dickheads to claw back the return on the public investment in those companies.

 

[Bluto]

Dems remind us that they are indeed retarded and just weaponizing this bs to drive their agenda and oppose their enemies.

So people shouldn’t be able to sue companies that produce a product that according to their own research the companies knew their product would produce catastrophic impacts on the environment?

Thats a weird take.

 

[drayer54]

So people shouldn’t be able to sue companies that produce a product that according to their own research the companies knew their product would produce catastrophic impacts on the environment?

Thats a weird take.

Chevron caused the fires and is responsible for the mismanagement is a beautiful take. Make sure the people list all of the petroleum-based products they use in their lives as consumers when filing the lawsuit.

 

[Irish#1]

So people shouldn’t be able to sue companies that produce a product that according to their own research the companies knew their product would produce catastrophic impacts on the environment?

Thats a weird take.

Let's get to the real core of the problem. We should sue Mother Nature. After all, she does this same thing every year. Blows those winds across a dry environment that she decided didn't need water.

 

[Bluto]

Chevron caused the fires and is responsible for the mismanagement is a beautiful take. Make sure the people list all of the petroleum-based products they use in their lives as consumers when filing the lawsuit.

If those products caused say cancer and Chevron suppressed that information there’s no doubt in my mind they would be sued.

 

[Bluto]

Let's get to the real core of the problem. We should sue Mother Nature. After all, she does this same thing every year. Blows those winds across a dry environment that she decided didn't need water.

Ok sure. Human activities have no direct impact on “nature”.

That’s an interesting take.

 

[Irish#1]

Ok sure. Human activities have no direct impact on “nature”.

That’s an interesting take.

The interesting take is putting this on the oil companies.